More Than Just Eye Candy: Graphics for e-Learning: Part 1

Surface features vs. functional features of graphics

A recent research study reported in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology showed that people could learn a simple procedure (bandaging a hand) equally effectively from three different graphic treatments. As shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9, all three treatments illustrated motion. Two were delivered on paper and one on video. The paper graphics were simple line drawings for which motion was communicated by text or line drawings alone. The video version used animation without sound to show the procedure.

FIGURE 7 Line drawing with text to show a bandaging procedure. (From Michas and Berry, 2000)

FIGURE 8 Line drawing with arrows to show a bandaging procedure (From Michas and Berry, 2000)

FIGURE 9 Video animation to show a bandaging procedure. (Adapted From Michas and Berry, 2000)

This research tells us that what causes learning is not the media — both video and paper worked fine; and it’s not the surface features either — both line drawings and animation worked fine. Rather, it’s the communication functionality of the graphic that matters. All three of these graphics belong in a category we call ‘transformational’ visuals. We define transformational graphics as any visual that shows movement through space or change over time. In the research study just referenced, the authors found that similar graphics that were not transformational resulted in significantly worse learning. For example, simple line drawings lacking motion descriptors in the form of words or arrows failed to support learning as effectively as the transformational visuals. Likewise, text alone that described the steps was not as effective as the transformational visuals.

A communication taxonomy of visuals

While surface features are important for production purposes, the functionality of graphics is more important for learning. In Graphics for Learning we describe two taxonomies of visuals which we believe will help you plan and design graphics more effectively. One is based on communication functions and the other is based on psychological learning processes. In this article, I summarize the communication taxonomy.

Table 1 summarizes six categories of visuals adapted from an article published last year in Educational Psychology Review that reflect communication purpose. Graphics of different surface features may fit into each category. Lets take a quick tour of these categories.

Decorative graphics. Decorative graphics are one of the most common types of visuals used in training materials. Their intended purpose is to build motivation by adding either aesthetics or humor to the instructional display. Figure 10 shows one example. In general, decorative graphics serve no real instructional purpose. And when taken to extremes such as the fantasy theme visual shown earlier in Figure 2, they have been shown to depress learning. We recommend that decorative visuals be used sparingly in instructional materials.

FIGURE 10 A decorative visual in a systems course. (Credit: Mark A.

Representational graphics. Along with decorative graphics, representational visuals are the other most common type of visual seen in training materials. As the name suggests, representational visuals are intended to depict the actual appearance of content. They can be presented in diverse surface features including photographs, screen captures, and line drawings. Representational visuals are appropriately used to present concrete concepts and factual information related to job tasks such as scenes, forms, equipment, and common work settings. Figures 4 through 9 all include some type of representational graphic.

Mnemonic graphics. Occasionally workers must recall factual information and cannot have access to a job aid. If recall must be very fast such as a train engineer knowing how to respond to a track signal, its meaning must be automated via drill and practice. However if recall does not need to be instantaneous, visual mnemonics are a proven memory device. Figure 11 shows a graphic used to help recall the meaning of the Spanish word Tenador. Note that an effective mnemonic incorporates the meaning of the word (fork) with a familiar image that can readily be associated with the sound of the new word (ten and door).

FIGURE 11 A visual mnemonic for the meaning of the Spanish word: Tenador

Organizational graphics. Organizational graphics are extremely important to help orient learners to the structure and sequence of lesson content. An organizational graphic shows qualitative relationships among the main ideas in a lesson. Often geometric visuals are used as the basis for organizational graphics. For example, Figure 3 shown earlier is the organizational graphic I use to summarize the three factors that most influence the learning value of graphics. Visual organizers are commonly used in training materials and help avoid the disconcerting blind trust walk-like experience resulting from courses that provide no overviews of the content.

Relational graphics. Whereas organizational graphics display qualitative relationships, relational visuals communicate quantitative relationships among lesson content. Some common examples include bar graphs and pie charts. The use of relational visuals has exploded over the past 20 years. Luckily recent controlled research gives some good guidelines for best design and use of different types of relational graphics.

Transformational graphics. A transformational graphic is a visual that communicates movement through space or changes over time. These are commonly used in combination with representational graphics to illustrate procedures and processes. Figures 5 through 9 are all examples of transformational graphics.

Interpretive graphics. Interpretive visuals build understanding of concepts or principles that are abstract, invisible, or both. Figure 12 shows an example developed by the Biologica project. Designed to teach secondary students the laws of genetics, the visual simulation allows students to change gene combinations on the chromosomes and immediately see the results in the dragon’s features.

FIGURE 12 An interpretive visual to teach genetics. (From the Biologica Project.)

Interpretive visuals don’t have to involve simulations or complex surface features. Gyselinck and Tardieu explained gas pressure laws using changes in the appearance of a closed paper bag corresponding with changes in altitude. They created three lesson versions. One used text alone, a second used text with simple representational visuals in the form of line drawings, and a third used the same line drawings but added arrows to convert the representational visual to an interpretive graphic. Both versions with graphics improved learning but the interpretive graphic resulted in the best conceptual understanding.

Which category of visual should you use?

As you can surmise from the communication functions of graphics, each category serves a different purpose and is best aligned with specific instructional content and goals. In general, procedural instructional goals are best served by a combination of representational and transformational visuals to demonstrate procedures and to contextualize online simulation practice. Facts benefit from representational visuals and, when there are multiple facts, from relational and organizational graphics as well. Concepts can be taught with representational visuals as well as interpretive and organizational graphics. Processes benefit from transformational and interpretive graphics. Principle-based tasks can make use of representational visuals to show the job context in which the tasks will be performed as well as organizational, relational, transformational, and interpretive visuals.

Planning your visuals systematically

As mentioned at the start of this article, the best graphic for learning purposes will depend on an interplay among your instructional goals, features of the graphic itself, and properties of the learning landscape including the training setting, the delivery media, and the learners who will participate. To derive the best graphic treatment you will need to apply a systematic visual design model. In Part 2 of this article, Chopeta Lyons will summarize our visual design model. 

References

Carney, R.N. and Levin, J.R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14 (1), 5-26.

Clark, R.C. and Lyons, C. (in press). Graphics for Learning: Proven Guidelines for Planning, Designing, and Evaluating Visuals in Training Materials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.

Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Pfeiffer.

Gyselinck, V. and Tardieu, H. (1999). The role of illustrations in text comprehension: What, when, for whom, and why? In H.Van Oostendrop and S.R. Goldman (Eds.), The Construction of Mental Representations During Reading. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harp, S.F., and Mayer, R.E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage. A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.

Michas and Berry (2000). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555-575.

Comments

Login or subscribe to comment